Mexico: The Need to Regulate the U.S.-Initiated Rapid Response Mechanism Complaints under Annex 31-A in Mexico

Given the increasing number of complaints submitted by the US government under the Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM) of Annex 31-A of the USMCA, Mexico faces an urgent need to regulate the procedural framework that governs such cases domestically. Without clear internal rules, there is legal uncertainty for both companies and authorities regarding the rights, timelines, and due process guarantees during RRM investigations. The regulatory vacuum threatens the predictability of labour enforcement under the trade agreement and undermines the principles of legal certainty.

Since the USMCA came into force in July 2020, the US government has actively utilised the Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM) set forth in Annex 31-A to address alleged denials of labour rights in Mexican facilities. While the treaty outlines basic procedural stages, Mexico has yet to enact specific domestic regulations that ensure transparency and legal certainty for stakeholders involved in these procedures.

In practice, this lack of regulation means that companies facing an RRM complaint often do not have access to the file, are not formally notified of their rights, and do not benefit from a clear timeline to respond or present evidence. Moreover, the investigation by Mexican authorities—primarily the Ministry of Labour (STPS)—occurs under discretionary standards, which could lead to unequal treatment and affect the company’s right to a fair hearing.

Legal scholars and practitioners have highlighted the constitutional implications of this issue. In particular, the absence of a regulated procedure may conflict with Article 14 of the Mexican Constitution, which mandates that no individual may be deprived of liberty, property, or rights without a duly substantiated process. There are also concerns about the principle of legality, as currently, companies are subject to significant international consequences (e.g., trade sanctions or facility-specific penalties) without a codified legal path for defense.

The situation is further complicated by the involvement of international actors, as the U.S. government plays a decisive role in triggering the RRM and assessing the remediation process, often in coordination with labour unions or NGOs. Without clear Mexican rules, this dynamic risks becoming opaque and asymmetrical.

Regulatory proposals have begun to emerge, focusing on enacting a secondary legal framework that would:

• Define procedural rights for companies and workers involved in RRM cases;
• Establish formal timelines and documentation requirements;
• Clarify the scope of the investigation and evidence evaluation; and
• Ensure coordination between Mexican authorities and provide oversight to avoid political interference.

Ultimately, the lack of domestic regulation not only jeopardises legal certainty but may also erode Mexico’s credibility in upholding its labour commitments under the USMCA. Establishing clear rules for the RRM process would contribute to transparency, due process, and institutional legitimacy.